They still play one of his songs at american football games. I believe some of his songs are played by the occasional radio station. Personally I think that Glitter should have his knob cut off. I quite liked his music though especially I love you love me.
2006-08-07 21:13:54 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
It's part of musical history so I'd say playing it doesn't condone Glitter's actions, only his music (which, of course, could be argued to be too tasteless and dated to be "condoned" anyway). His behaviour doesn't miraculously change the chords or production of the music so there's no reason why you should stop liking any of his tunes. Playing it at American Football games is a little more complex as I guess there are royalties issues...
NB: I don't believe Glitter's kn*b should be cut off. That would be a tasteless and thuggish punishment. Prison will do.
2006-08-08 00:29:36 · answer #1 · answered by CJ 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He was once a great performer and musician he is now however a slimmy old perv. I have long been a fan of him and have seen him many times live and have to say even in his later years he was fantastic. I see no problem playing his music, it set the beat for a generation, however the man is a criminal so maybe the royalties coming from his music should go back into the lives of those he has destroyed. I think the answer is clear Mr Gadd 'No we do no longer want to be in your gang and had we known what your gang was in the first place we may well have not signed up for it all them many years ago!
I would also like to point out that no radio or tv station has stopped play Jerry Lee Lewis records, remember Myra Gale Brown or Chuck Berry and the 14 year old Apache waitress??
2006-08-10 04:54:01 · answer #2 · answered by gary b 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The NFL has ask the stadiums to stop playing the music, because he was convicted of having kiddy porn on his computer. He claimed that he didn't know how ti got there, which may or may not be true. At the time, there was various sting operations being run whereby kiddy porn was put into people's computers, or kiddy porn magazines were sent to them. If they did not report it, or worse, viewed it, than they were arrested. Some of the cases were overturned in the U.S., but that is not so easy in England. They were doing it more for the publicity than anything, so that they could show they were doing something with the millions of dollars allocated to fight kiddy porn. Whether or not this was the case with Glitters, he was convicted and served time. I have a video on one of his last concert performances.
2006-08-07 21:23:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He's made some great music (and a lot of bad music) and it would be a shame to lose Rock and Roll Part 2. Banning the music would also deprive other people of future royalties.
So how about passing Glitter's royalties on to a children's charity?
2006-08-07 21:34:02 · answer #4 · answered by Stammerman! 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
All celebrities found guilty of crimes against children should not be allowed positive publicity.
Whether that results in their music being banned, or whether they should cease to be paid royalties for public performances is up for debate. It would be a shame to ban music, but why should an artist be profiting from the sales or records to those people they seek to harm!!!
2006-08-07 21:23:28 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Gary Glitter is great and it is personal choice if you listen to his music or believe what has been said about his personal life.
2006-08-07 21:29:28 · answer #6 · answered by frankmilano610 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I could live without GG's music.
But what do you all think of when you hear a GG tune? Besides Glam rock in the 70's?
A child molester? Well, that may be a good thing as I think we shouldn't just bury our heads in the sand when we are confronted by a disgusting aspect of life.
I wouldn't buy one of his records though, but then I never would have.
Good question.
2006-08-07 21:24:19 · answer #7 · answered by David R 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Most radio stations, etc have stopped plaing his stuff. Fair enough. It would only be like giving royalties to sick and twisted individual. But The Who? he media are quite happy to overlook Pete Townsends' conviction for acessing Lolita sites.... and remeber, he said he "accidentally" used his credit card number to acess this filth.
2006-08-08 03:00:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
as a Teenager i loved his songs, but he has made a life style choice, one that harms others, why should he carry on earning profit from our money and even kids money - so he has the funds to travel-commit further serious crime and have the money to buy expensive lawyers to defend him self and his actions? the same could apply to Micheal Jackson or anyone who commits these types of crime. put it this way, his song is playing on a radio, some little kid says oh this is good, who sings this.."erm some man who is likely to sexually assault you son,but don't worry lets just enjoy the song?" its called double standards.. so no turn him off, shut him down.
2006-08-07 21:32:05 · answer #9 · answered by dianafpacker 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hell no, everytime his song is played he gets royalties to fund his sick lifestyle and buy his way out of another court case.
Every time his music is played or somone buys his song some kid is being abused. Think about it that way. Some kid is having his/her life destroyed by Gary the sicko Glitter.
2006-08-07 21:24:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋